| Page 2 of 2 | 1 | 2 |
|
|
[OT] 4x4 cars on London streets
In message , at 19:04:38 on Tue, 15 Feb
2005, Dave Arquati remarked: One also has to bear in mind *road space* rather than the space physically occupied by the car. As a typical 4x4 is quite a bit taller than a "normal" car, it reduces visibility for the car behind it, so the car behind must keep more distance in order to retain visibility. And you've seen this happening in practice? From personal experience outside London. I can't see why it would be any different in London, and I know that one major claim used against 4x4s is that they make life more difficult for other motorists. So you'd ban vans and buses from Central London on the same principle? -- Roland Perry |
[OT] 4x4 cars on London streets
Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at 19:04:38 on Tue, 15 Feb 2005, Dave Arquati remarked: One also has to bear in mind *road space* rather than the space physically occupied by the car. As a typical 4x4 is quite a bit taller than a "normal" car, it reduces visibility for the car behind it, so the car behind must keep more distance in order to retain visibility. And you've seen this happening in practice? From personal experience outside London. I can't see why it would be any different in London, and I know that one major claim used against 4x4s is that they make life more difficult for other motorists. So you'd ban vans and buses from Central London on the same principle? Of course not. Vans and buses are necessary; in many cases, 4x4s are not. Besides, I was just quoting one of the many arguments floated against their use in the city. I never even suggested banning 4x4s from central London. There are other measures which could be taken to reduce their use. -- Dave Arquati Imperial College, SW7 www.alwaystouchout.com - Transport projects in London |
[OT] 4x4 cars on London streets
"Roland Perry" wrote in message
.uk... In message , at 11:07:15 on Tue, 15 Feb 2005, Dan Gravell remarked: Roland Perry wrote: Something like 90% of journeys in London are by public transport, so the remainder who are using their car have obviously got a very good reason. Often (amongst those I've asked) it's because they have had very bad experiences with public transport in the past, and feel they need the extra flexibility that a car provides. That statistic does not really mean a great deal though; the fact that the public transport system can support that figure is because it is more scalable. Most of the commuter rail in and out of London is at bursting point, and has nowhere to scale *to*. It is at maximum capacity. The issue is that some individuals still appear to consider the private motor vehicle (read: car), which is not scalable or anywhere near it, a good way to get around London. A feel your statistic proves my point. Only 10%, which means they are the real persistent people who must have a *very* good reason. Some do, I'm sure, but have you considered some are selfish? I know a few... That's another, very realistic reason, surely. If they had a bad episode when they couldn't get a seat between Leicester Square and Covent Garden, then that's hardly a good excuse to put another vehicle on the crowded streets of London. I've had some pretty awful experiences on public transport, but they're very rare, and I've had more in private transport. As an aside, where did you get that figure from? I've been looking for a good stats site for a while. From a LUL (or similar) survey done 5-8 years ago. I've no immediate reference. So it's bang up to date! Fantastic! Oh, I think you mis-spelled "my ass". joking ;) I used to travel to London from Cambridge 3 or 4 days a week, for a couple of years, and in that time I used the train except for perhaps half a dozen times when I went by car because I had lots of luggage/items-to-deliver to cope with. And most of those trips I did on a Sunday. And one time I knew I was going to be very late and it wasn't practical to get a train. That's wonderful for you, I wish everyone were so considerate. Self preservation, more like. Of course, it depends what you call London. Years ago, I would regularly drive down the M4 and park at Marble Arch (under Hyde Park), or perhaps at one of the car parks in the squares north of Oxford Street. There was never very much of a problem, traffic-wise, and as the nearest sensible railway station to my home in rural Oxfordshire was more than halfway into London (at the edge of the Metropolitan), a lot of the time it just felt "right" to carry on, having got that far. I am referring to anywhere that is densely populated, not just central London. I cannot recall the development density index where car use becomes difficult, but I would think zones 1-6 are past it. M4, Westway, then Marble Arch via Paddington aren't particularly congested most of the day. -- Roland Perry |
[OT] 4x4 cars on London streets
Roland Perry wrote:
Of course, it depends what you call London. Years ago, I would regularly drive down the M4 and park at Marble Arch (under Hyde Park), or perhaps at one of the car parks in the squares north of Oxford Street. There was never very much of a problem, traffic-wise, and as the nearest sensible railway station to my home in rural Oxfordshire was more than halfway into London (at the edge of the Metropolitan), a lot of the time it just felt "right" to carry on, having got that far. What part of rural Oxfordshire was that? I can think of parts of it that it would've been more practical to drive via the M40 than take the train, but none where the M4 would've been better. |
[OT] 4x4 cars on London streets
In message , at 00:15:03
on Wed, 16 Feb 2005, d remarked: Roland Perry wrote: Something like 90% of journeys in London are by public transport, so the remainder who are using their car have obviously got a very good reason. Often (amongst those I've asked) it's because they have had very bad experiences with public transport in the past, and feel they need the extra flexibility that a car provides. That statistic does not really mean a great deal though; the fact that the public transport system can support that figure is because it is more scalable. Most of the commuter rail in and out of London is at bursting point, and has nowhere to scale *to*. It is at maximum capacity. The issue is that some individuals still appear to consider the private motor vehicle (read: car), which is not scalable or anywhere near it, a good way to get around London. A feel your statistic proves my point. Only 10%, which means they are the real persistent people who must have a *very* good reason. Some do, I'm sure, but have you considered some are selfish? Some people would say you were selfish to buy your vegetables at the supermarket, rather than spending several hours a week digging an allotment. People's standards vary. I know a few... That's another, very realistic reason, surely. If they had a bad episode when they couldn't get a seat between Leicester Square and Covent Garden, then that's hardly a good excuse to put another vehicle on the crowded streets of London. I've had some pretty awful experiences on public transport, but they're very rare, and I've had more in private transport. I had more in mind the people who travel 50 miles in from their home town, and had a bad experience (or two) with the railways. I went back to driving to work (outside the London area) after Hatfield, for example, when one day (not the first day after) it took me three hours to get to work (instead of one). As an aside, where did you get that figure from? I've been looking for a good stats site for a while. From a LUL (or similar) survey done 5-8 years ago. I've no immediate reference. So it's bang up to date! Fantastic! Oh, I think you mis-spelled "my ass". joking ;) I don't think that kind of figure varies much from year to year. We'd have noticed if cars in Central London had doubled (80% by PT, 20% by car) or halved (95% by PT, 5% by car) from the underlying 90% by PT, 10% by car. -- Roland Perry |
[OT] 4x4 cars on London streets
In message , at 13:23:24 on
Wed, 16 Feb 2005, Aidan Stanger remarked: Of course, it depends what you call London. Years ago, I would regularly drive down the M4 and park at Marble Arch (under Hyde Park), or perhaps at one of the car parks in the squares north of Oxford Street. There was never very much of a problem, traffic-wise, and as the nearest sensible railway station to my home in rural Oxfordshire was more than halfway into London (at the edge of the Metropolitan), a lot of the time it just felt "right" to carry on, having got that far. What part of rural Oxfordshire was that? I can think of parts of it that it would've been more practical to drive via the M40 than take the train, but none where the M4 would've been better. Sorry, I did mean the M40. -- Roland Perry |
[OT] 4x4 cars on London streets
On Tue, 15 Feb 2005 23:19:30 +0000, Dave Arquati
wrote: I never even suggested banning 4x4s from central London. There are other measures which could be taken to reduce their use. That may well be where we differ. I don't see why a 4x4 vehicle should be considered any different from any other vehicle, in Central London or otherwise. We may well want a target to reduce the numbers of private motor vehicles in general in London, but to target a specific type of *transmission* in such an ill-informed manner is not a good idea. I say transmission, because 4x4 vehicles come in many shapes and sizes, the only thing they *all* have in common being power transmission to all wheels in some way. Only *some* of them are Range Rovers, Discoverys etc, and as has been stated even those don't take as much road space (on the horizontal plane) as people think. I'm not convinced by the vertical plane argument, as I would have thought most drivers don't look ahead through other cars as a means of seeing the road ahead, as visibility is that poor that way. Neil -- Neil Williams in Milton Keynes, UK When replying please use neil at the above domain 'wensleydale' is a spam trap and is not read. |
[OT] 4x4 cars on London streets
Mike Bristow wrote:
I've driven from Leytonstone to Paddington on a number of occasions. Certainly more convienent when meeting She-Who-Must-Not-Be-Named and her luggage. It was probably quicker than the Tube (the PT alterantive), but it's hard to be sure. Certainly not much slower. How much luggage are we talking? While I see that as a reason *you* make this journey, I don't think it is a valid reason for anybody but yourself. Lets say that for something to be a metro service, it needs to be frequent enough that a timetable is pointless. Comparing the number of people arriving at the station per minute over the course of the day would be an interesting way to find out if the passengers bother with learning the timetable. My guess is that there will be little variation at Camden Road - about as many passengers will arrive at the platform looking to catch a train the minute before the train is due as the minute after - indicating that 15 mintute wait between trains is "metro", while at Upper Holloway, there will be a vast difference - indicating that 30 minute waits are not "metro". But I'm guessing; hard figures would be interesting. My guess would be that is not the case; at least I live next to a so called "metro" station, but I still check the timetables everytime I go there. I'm not waiting around for fifteen minutes. |
[OT] 4x4 cars on London streets
Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at 15:39:51 on Tue, 15 Feb 2005, Dan Gravell remarked: The PM is hardly representative or comparable to "business men". I don't know what you mean by "business man" but I'm guessing there's too many of them to cater for aI'm afraid, and frankly they're not important enough to concede to (unlike the PM). So where do you draw the line? At people with "Minister" in their job title. "Junior Minister" Managing Director of a PLC Director of any registered Company People called "Sales Manager" of a company with more than 1000 employees Ultimately Roland, while we are constrained by natural language in discussing this point one can always take the discussion down the road of semantics and ambiguity into a dead end. Let's not do that 'eh? Picking up on the original point, my position is that the car is still overused given PT provision in London. I consider that in many cases people are too lazy, or simply do not make a conscious decision to use PT, as if they have some kind of logical reasoning limit. I come to this conclusion witnessing the chronic congestion caused almost entirely by private motor vehicle users in South London. My point is that PT is inherently more scalable, and so would be better fit to support the people wishing to be transported, regardless of their bourgeois preferences. |
[OT] 4x4 cars on London streets
In message , at
09:45:02 on Wed, 16 Feb 2005, Dan Gravell remarked: The PM is hardly representative or comparable to "business men". I don't know what you mean by "business man" but I'm guessing there's too many of them to cater for aI'm afraid, and frankly they're not important enough to concede to (unlike the PM). So where do you draw the line? At people with "Minister" in their job title. "Junior Minister" Managing Director of a PLC Director of any registered Company People called "Sales Manager" of a company with more than 1000 employees Ultimately Roland, while we are constrained by natural language in discussing this point one can always take the discussion down the road of semantics and ambiguity into a dead end. Let's not do that 'eh? My choice would be "anyone whose employer considers them important enough to issue them with a company car or chauffeur" - but I'm sure others won't agree. Picking up on the original point, my position is that the car is still overused given PT provision in London. I consider that in many cases people are too lazy, or simply do not make a conscious decision to use PT, as if they have some kind of logical reasoning limit. I think most of the people in the central area have made a very conscious decision to use a car. You don't spend 30 grand on a merc, on a whim! I come to this conclusion witnessing the chronic congestion caused almost entirely by private motor vehicle users in South London. My point is that PT is inherently more scalable, and so would be better fit to support the people wishing to be transported, regardless of their bourgeois preferences. There's precious little PT outside the M25, which is where a lot of the people we were discussing originate their journeys from. As for local journeys, I'm sure few would exchange their car for a bus when visiting the supermarket for their weekly shop - or indeed when popping up to the High St to pickup their takeaway. People *do* have reasons to use a car. -- Roland Perry |
[OT] 4x4 cars on London streets
Neil Williams wrote:
On Tue, 15 Feb 2005 23:19:30 +0000, Dave Arquati wrote: I never even suggested banning 4x4s from central London. There are other measures which could be taken to reduce their use. That may well be where we differ. I don't see why a 4x4 vehicle should be considered any different from any other vehicle, in Central London or otherwise. We may well want a target to reduce the numbers of private motor vehicles in general in London, but to target a specific type of *transmission* in such an ill-informed manner is not a good idea. I say transmission, because 4x4 vehicles come in many shapes and sizes, the only thing they *all* have in common being power transmission to all wheels in some way. Only *some* of them are Range Rovers, Discoverys etc, and as has been stated even those don't take as much road space (on the horizontal plane) as people think. I do understand the argument you're putting across - and it's valid; it would be silly to target the type of transmission. However, within the 4x4 class, there are a whole set of vehicles that could be classified as a nuisance - for safety reasons (for the occupants and for other motorists, cyclists and pedestrians) and environmental reasons. Perhaps these factors should be concentrated on. There are also practical factors - the large Range Rovers etc. seem to have trouble manoeuvring into parking spaces or around each other in narrow streets, and that has implications for traffic flow. Other bulky vehicles like vans tend to be driven by people more experienced with such manoeuvres. I'm not convinced by the vertical plane argument, as I would have thought most drivers don't look ahead through other cars as a means of seeing the road ahead, as visibility is that poor that way. It's not just the vertical place - as the Range Rover-type vehicles have a larger cross-section, you have to keep a greater distance to see things either side of the car. I find looking through the vehicle ahead gives greater visibility (i.e. some) of the road ahead than not looking through it (i.e. none). Conversely, drivers of taller vehicles also have worse visibility of smaller objects like children, especially to the rear. It's said that in the States (where I accept that SUVs are generally even larger than the equivalent here), every year around 80 children are killed by parents who reverse SUVs and hit them because they can't see them. -- Dave Arquati Imperial College, SW7 www.alwaystouchout.com - Transport projects in London |
[OT] 4x4 cars on London streets
Dan Gravell wrote to uk.transport.london on Wed, 16 Feb 2005:
Picking up on the original point, my position is that the car is still overused given PT provision in London. I consider that in many cases people are too lazy, or simply do not make a conscious decision to use PT, as if they have some kind of logical reasoning limit. I come to this conclusion witnessing the chronic congestion caused almost entirely by private motor vehicle users in South London. And there are some people who are simply too scared to use public transport, reckoning that they'll be mugged, robbed, raped or otherwise inconvenienced whenever they use it. I know a young woman of 18 whose mother has simply never allowed her to use public transport in her entire life, which I find very shocking. But Dad is a policeman, and Mother says that "Dad tells them" all the dreadful things that go on, so the young woman has probably never been on a bus or train in her entire life. I am not easily shockable, but that did shock me! -- "Mrs Redboots" http://www.amsmyth.demon.co.uk/ Website updated 23 January 2005 with new photos |
[OT] 4x4 cars on London streets
"Roland Perry" wrote in message
news:1108538719.cafb1656c83909a1225e9e8e836cdca5@t eranews... In message , at 00:15:03 on Wed, 16 Feb 2005, d remarked: Roland Perry wrote: Something like 90% of journeys in London are by public transport, so the remainder who are using their car have obviously got a very good reason. Often (amongst those I've asked) it's because they have had very bad experiences with public transport in the past, and feel they need the extra flexibility that a car provides. That statistic does not really mean a great deal though; the fact that the public transport system can support that figure is because it is more scalable. Most of the commuter rail in and out of London is at bursting point, and has nowhere to scale *to*. It is at maximum capacity. The issue is that some individuals still appear to consider the private motor vehicle (read: car), which is not scalable or anywhere near it, a good way to get around London. A feel your statistic proves my point. Only 10%, which means they are the real persistent people who must have a *very* good reason. Some do, I'm sure, but have you considered some are selfish? Some people would say you were selfish to buy your vegetables at the supermarket, rather than spending several hours a week digging an allotment. People's standards vary. Why? Are supermarkets hideously overcrowded with runaway cans of tomatoes killing people and ruining the athmosphere? :) Not having an alotment, or even having access to one, that's not even possible. Public transport is there and it works. I know a few... That's another, very realistic reason, surely. If they had a bad episode when they couldn't get a seat between Leicester Square and Covent Garden, then that's hardly a good excuse to put another vehicle on the crowded streets of London. I've had some pretty awful experiences on public transport, but they're very rare, and I've had more in private transport. I had more in mind the people who travel 50 miles in from their home town, and had a bad experience (or two) with the railways. I went back to driving to work (outside the London area) after Hatfield, for example, when one day (not the first day after) it took me three hours to get to work (instead of one). I can appreciate that - I used to commute from West Berkshire to Hanger Lane and back every day. I still used trains and the tube - it wasn't as fast as a car, but it was a LOT cheaper, and kept another private, space-wasting vehicle off the streets of London. Lots of the people you see driving round central london are Londoners, too lazy to drive. There are thousands of them. I know a bunch. Pseudostylish types who use their cars as status symbols. My boss has a lambourghini, and he drives the 2 minutes from his house (which we can see from our office) - he's not alone. Someone else I know drives from west london to North London, practically following the tube lines, yet still drives his car. It's not about needs for these people, but wants. It's about image. It's sad :) As an aside, where did you get that figure from? I've been looking for a good stats site for a while. From a LUL (or similar) survey done 5-8 years ago. I've no immediate reference. So it's bang up to date! Fantastic! Oh, I think you mis-spelled "my ass". joking ;) I don't think that kind of figure varies much from year to year. We'd have noticed if cars in Central London had doubled (80% by PT, 20% by car) or halved (95% by PT, 5% by car) from the underlying 90% by PT, 10% by car. Maybe if nothing in London had changed in the time-frame, but with massive projects like the congestion charge coming into play, those statistics must be taken with a massive pinch of salt, as we simply don't know. I'm not disputing them, I'm just saying these could be accurate figures, or they could be inaccurate :) -- Roland Perry |
[OT] 4x4 cars on London streets
On Wed, 16 Feb 2005 16:42:03 GMT, d wrote:
It's not about needs for these people, but wants. It's about image. It's sad :) It may also be about comfort. At least if one is driving, even if one is standing still or doing 3mph most of the way, one is guaranteed a seat. This is surely the hardest thing about trying to convince people to drive no further than their nearest railhead. -- http://gallery120232.fotopic.net/p9632896.html (33 117 in the middle (yes, middle!) of a train at Weymouth Q in 1989) |
[OT] 4x4 cars on London streets
On Wed, 16 Feb 2005 12:54:16 +0000, Dave Arquati
wrote: I do understand the argument you're putting across - and it's valid; it would be silly to target the type of transmission. However, within the 4x4 class, there are a whole set of vehicles that could be classified as a nuisance - for safety reasons (for the occupants and for other motorists, cyclists and pedestrians) and environmental reasons. Perhaps these factors should be concentrated on. Perhaps so. I would expect to see old brick-style Volvo estates, for example, being targeted in the same way. These may be lower, but are just as wide and far longer than most SUVs (which is probably a better term to describe the vehicles concerned) and probably pollute as much. I doubt they're all that well-designed in terms of crashworthiness for pedestrians or cyclists, either. There are also practical factors - the large Range Rovers etc. seem to have trouble manoeuvring into parking spaces or around each other in narrow streets, and that has implications for traffic flow. Other bulky vehicles like vans tend to be driven by people more experienced with such manoeuvres. MX is that dangerous and stupid driving of large vehicles is most likely to be seen in two types of drivers - white van man and taxi/minicab drivers. Both of these should act professionally with their vehicles, but often IMX do not. It's not just the vertical place - as the Range Rover-type vehicles have a larger cross-section, you have to keep a greater distance to see things either side of the car. I presume you mean "wider", as this is not necessarily the case. Refer to the figures other posters have contributed. I find looking through the vehicle ahead gives greater visibility (i.e. some) of the road ahead than not looking through it (i.e. none). Each to their own. Even on the rare occasion that I do drive a normal-height car (not often - only if I'm at my parents' house without my own car, as I'm still on their insurance for such situations) I wouldn't say I do to any extent. I'm more likely to keep sufficient distance to either work with what I can see, or to see around the sides. Conversely, drivers of taller vehicles also have worse visibility of smaller objects like children, especially to the rear. It's said that in the States (where I accept that SUVs are generally even larger than the equivalent here), every year around 80 children are killed by parents who reverse SUVs and hit them because they can't see them. This is the case with most tall vehicles, not just SUVs. I currently have two cars, the 88" Landy and a Vauxhall Agila 1.2. The latter is designed as a city car - short in length, narrow, modern, low-pollution engine and good lock so it can be parked on a proverbial postage stamp. It is, however, about 5' "tall", which means that visibility out of the rear is pretty poor. A decent driver, however, can adapt to this by looking before they prepare to reverse (getting out if necessary) or by the use of the side mirrors[1]. Yes, you have a blind spot, but you do in a high-backed sports car as well. You could ask me to drive a low-roofed vehicle, but, at 6'4" or thereabouts, I would decline as I do not fit the majority of them sufficiently well to be comfortable. I find this to be getting worse with most manufacturers as they pursue the mecca of a "sporty driving position" as well - I'm much more comfortable in a vehicle laid out with a bus/van-style slanted steering wheel. Anyway, back to the point, I choose not to drive in London. I would suggest that driving in general in London (and other big cities with good public transport) should be discouraged, and the type of vehicle being driven be rather secondary to that. [1] Some drivers, for some reason, shy away from these. I commented to a (somewhat younger than I) friend who had recently passed his test that I tended to reverse-park the Agila by dropping the left-hand electric mirror down so I could see the rear wheel and the kerb - and he called that cheating! I'd call it making use of the vehicle's features. Neil -- Neil Williams in Milton Keynes, UK When replying please use neil at the above domain 'wensleydale' is a spam trap and is not read. |
[OT] 4x4 cars on London streets
Chris Tolley wrote:
It may also be about comfort. At least if one is driving, even if one is standing still or doing 3mph most of the way, one is guaranteed a seat. This is surely the hardest thing about trying to convince people to drive no further than their nearest railhead. Guaranteed a seat, control of the climate, decent quality stereo and peace & quiet, as well as door to door transport |
[OT] 4x4 cars on London streets
On Wed, 16 Feb 2005 20:49:07 +0000 (UTC), Terry Harper
wrote: My wife has a Suzuki Wagon R, which I drive a lot. It's the older version with the large mirrors, and you can have those set to be able to see the rear wheels all the time, as well as the road behind you. I always thought it was a shame that that wasn't continued into the new model/Vauxhall Agila that I've got. I make very heavy use of the side mirrors, and just about never use the rear view mirror, because much of my driving at uni was minibuses. Electric mirrors does slightly make up for it, mind. The Landy has big mirrors and they are very useful indeed. Neil -- Neil Williams in Milton Keynes, UK When replying please use neil at the above domain 'wensleydale' is a spam trap and is not read. |
[OT] 4x4 cars on London streets
In message , at 16:42:03
on Wed, 16 Feb 2005, d remarked: Some people would say you were selfish to buy your vegetables at the supermarket, rather than spending several hours a week digging an allotment. People's standards vary. Why? There is a lobby which says that it's environmentally criminal to truck vegetables halfway across the country (or fly them halfway around the world), when you could easily make do with ones grown locally. In a built up area that would have to be an allotment, in the absence of farm shops. Different people have different "issues". It's impossible to satisfy them all simultaneously, if for no other reason than it wouldn't leave any time to do one's day-job. Are supermarkets hideously overcrowded with runaway cans of tomatoes killing people and ruining the athmosphere? :) Not having an alotment, or even having access to one, that's not even possible. Public transport is there and it works. No, it's not available to many people. You perhaps live in London and are spoilt, try going outside the M25 and the picture changes dramatically. Take what happened to me last night. Train was supposed to get me to the station (from London) at 20:39, but as often happens it waited outside the station for ten minutes, so arrived at 20.50. Although there's a very good bus service during the day, and even a bus every hour all through the night, the mid-evening gets a bit grim (by comparison, most people living outside London would give their right arms for a bus every half hour after 6pm) So I missed the 20:41 and 20:46 buses (although given the queue at the stop when I got there I'm not entirely convinced the latter had just left). Next one scheduled for 21:01 but didn't turn up until 21:08 So I was stood around in the cold, in a dodgy part of town, for almost 20 minutes, and got home at around 20:20, 40 minutes after my scheduled arrival at the station - not bad for a 2.5 mile journey ! Meanwhile, the meeting in London ended, as predicted, at 5pm, but my train from St Pancras was at 6.30 (to give allowance for delays crossing London). In the event it did indeed take me 50 minutes from docklands - thanks to the DLR having some kind of issue (platform completely jammed, next train in "9 minutes", which is 'forever' on the DLR) so I walked to Canary Wharf and got the tube. All in all, getting on for four and a half hours: an unplanned walk, two tubes, two trains (had to change at Leicester) and a bus. If I'd driven, my route planning software says 2 hrs 18 minutes door to door, but allowing for congestion getting to the M11 feeder (only a mile or two from where my meeting was), let's say two and a half hours. OK, so the "extra" two hours yesterday (plus the extra two hours going down - I'd allowed 5 hrs door to door by PT in case of cancellations etc) won't kill me, but if I was doing a trip like that regularly (and every trip I make is very similar to the one I described) I'd start to wonder if PT was the right solution. It's not about needs for these people, but wants. Like you "want" to buy your vegetables and fruit flown in from California, rather than grow your own? -- Roland Perry |
[OT] 4x4 cars on London streets
Stimpy wrote:
Chris Tolley wrote: It may also be about comfort. At least if one is driving, even if one is standing still or doing 3mph most of the way, one is guaranteed a seat. This is surely the hardest thing about trying to convince people to drive no further than their nearest railhead. Guaranteed a seat, control of the climate, decent quality stereo and peace & quiet, as well as door to door transport So you could say a thoroughly US-american attitude :-( Though even these guys tend to consider their way (slowly). Short question: what's the sense in comfort if we knowingly ruin our environment? Unless proven otherwise combustion engines cause massive pollution which will cause future generations to live in less quality than we do - a bit selfish I'd say. "Green trees? I've heard of these from my grandparents but then their generation at least had their own car." |
[OT] 4x4 cars on London streets
In message lekom.at,
at 09:36:35 on Thu, 17 Feb 2005, Guy Perry remarked: Short question: what's the sense in comfort if we knowingly ruin our environment? Life's like that. I take it you don't have central heating, as running that ruins the environment too? -- Roland Perry |
[OT] 4x4 cars on London streets
Terry Harper wrote:
For anyone who has to drive a large vehicle, the ability to see where the rear wheels are is an important part of reversing. Not only for reversing. I allways wondered how bus-/lorrydrivers can run along the kerb so close without constantly hiting it - until I did the license myself. Having those massive mirrors on both sides makes it quite easy to maneuver an up to 15m bus or 18m bendy: you see the whole length and height of the bus and _that_ makes not hitting the kerb possible. Though the problem reversing is the masive blind spot you have behind (unless equipped with a camera). I sure miss larger mirrors on my car (and the retarder). |
[OT] 4x4 cars on London streets
In article ,
Dan Gravell wrote: Mike Bristow wrote: I've driven from Leytonstone to Paddington on a number of occasions. Certainly more convienent when meeting She-Who-Must-Not-Be-Named and her luggage. It was probably quicker than the Tube (the PT alterantive), but it's hard to be sure. Certainly not much slower. How much luggage are we talking? Enough that I wouldn't want to carry it far. While I see that as a reason *you* make this journey, I don't think it is a valid reason for anybody but yourself. The number of people parking outside the station with blue badges suggests otherwise. But I'm guessing; hard figures would be interesting. My guess would be that is not the case Perhaps it's time for a survey. -- Mike Bristow - really a very good driver |
[OT] 4x4 cars on London streets
Roland Perry wrote:
Life's like that. I take it you don't have central heating, as running that ruins the environment too? Good one! Yes I have heating - long distance it is at least. Yet I think as town dweller I can easily do without car most of the time, just a matter of planning. |
[OT] 4x4 cars on London streets
On Thu, 17 Feb 2005 09:47:34 +0100, Guy Perry
wrote: Terry Harper wrote: For anyone who has to drive a large vehicle, the ability to see where the rear wheels are is an important part of reversing. Not only for reversing. I allways wondered how bus-/lorrydrivers can run along the kerb so close without constantly hiting it - until I did the license myself. Having those massive mirrors on both sides makes it quite easy to maneuver an up to 15m bus or 18m bendy: you see the whole length and height of the bus and _that_ makes not hitting the kerb possible. Though the problem reversing is the masive blind spot you have behind (unless equipped with a camera). I sure miss larger mirrors on my car (and the retarder). Very true. You have to watch the rear wheels going round corners and when threading through narrow gaps in the traffic. It's too easy to swipe the corner of another vehicle. -- Terry Harper Website Coordinator, The Omnibus Society http://www.omnibussoc.org |
[OT] 4x4 cars on London streets
Guy Perry wrote to uk.transport.london on Thu, 17 Feb 2005:
Good one! Yes I have heating - long distance it is at least. Yet I think as town dweller I can easily do without car most of the time, just a matter of planning. I agree with Guy, here. We do own a car, but it spends most of the week in the garage - it comes out on Sunday mornings and once a month on a Wednesday evening. Otherwise, it is used a great deal for holidays and trips out of London, but we find public transport very nearly as convenient, more environmentally sound, and healthier - all that walking.... -- "Mrs Redboots" http://www.amsmyth.demon.co.uk/ Website updated 23 January 2005 with new photos |
[OT] 4x4 cars on London streets
Roland Perry wrote to uk.transport.london on Thu, 17 Feb 2005:
So I was stood around in the cold, in a dodgy part of town, for almost 20 minutes, and got home at around 20:20, 40 minutes after my scheduled arrival at the station - not bad for a 2.5 mile journey ! Wouldn't it have been quicker and healthier to have walked? -- "Mrs Redboots" http://www.amsmyth.demon.co.uk/ Website updated 23 January 2005 with new photos |
[OT] 4x4 cars on London streets
In message , at 15:15:09 on Thu,
17 Feb 2005, Mrs Redboots remarked: So I was stood around in the cold, in a dodgy part of town, for almost 20 minutes, and got home at around 20:20, 40 minutes after my scheduled arrival at the station - not bad for a 2.5 mile journey ! Wouldn't it have been quicker Ten of the 40 minutes were locked in a train a hundred yards from the station. Which has at least six platforms, only two of which were in use when we eventually arrived. Go figure, as the yanks say. and healthier to have walked? Such a statement assumes a degree of healthiness capable of 5mph for half an hour, in the cold, after a very long day. Is this an inevitable consequence of opting for public transport? And you wonder why people use a car if they can? -- Roland Perry |
[OT] 4x4 cars on London streets
In message , at 15:13:33 on Thu,
17 Feb 2005, Mrs Redboots remarked: Good one! Yes I have heating - long distance it is at least. Yet I think as town dweller I can easily do without car most of the time, just a matter of planning. I agree with Guy, here. We do own a car, but it spends most of the week in the garage - it comes out on Sunday mornings and once a month on a Wednesday evening. Otherwise, it is used a great deal for holidays and trips out of London, but we find public transport very nearly as convenient, more environmentally sound, and healthier - all that walking.... Spoken as a true Londoner. And I'd agree that it's a sustainable lifestyle for some. But there majority of people simply don't have access to good enough PT to make that viable. -- Roland Perry |
[OT] 4x4 cars on London streets
Roland Perry wrote to uk.transport.london on Thu, 17 Feb 2005:
In message , at 15:13:33 on Thu, 17 Feb 2005, Mrs Redboots on.co.uk remarked: Good one! Yes I have heating - long distance it is at least. Yet I think as town dweller I can easily do without car most of the time, just a matter of planning. I agree with Guy, here. We do own a car, but it spends most of the week in the garage - it comes out on Sunday mornings and once a month on a Wednesday evening. Otherwise, it is used a great deal for holidays and trips out of London, but we find public transport very nearly as convenient, more environmentally sound, and healthier - all that walking.... Spoken as a true Londoner. And I'd agree that it's a sustainable lifestyle for some. But there majority of people simply don't have access to good enough PT to make that viable. Now that I am well aware of! But those of us who *do* have good public transport ought to make use of it. And having said that, next month we are going out to dinner with friends after an evening engagement to which we usually cycle (him) or bus/walk (me) - I don't fancy trying to come back from a part of London I don't know very well on my own on a bus at closing time, so we will take the car that night! -- "Mrs Redboots" http://www.amsmyth.demon.co.uk/ Website updated 23 January 2005 with new photos |
[OT] 4x4 cars on London streets
On Thu, 17 Feb 2005 09:36:35 +0100, Guy Perry wrote:
Short question: what's the sense in comfort if we knowingly ruin our environment? Comfort feels nice, and the environment is so big that one person isn't going to make much difference. That may not be sense, but it is reality. Since Margaret Thatcher undermined the idea of society in the 1980's, competition, rather than co-operation, has been the model. Sadly. -- http://gallery120232.fotopic.net/p9683618.html (Class 100 dmu car 51127 and 309 612 at Colchester in 1980) |
[OT] 4x4 cars on London streets
Mrs Redboots wrote the following in:
Dan Gravell wrote to uk.transport.london on Wed, 16 Feb 2005: Picking up on the original point, my position is that the car is still overused given PT provision in London. I consider that in many cases people are too lazy, or simply do not make a conscious decision to use PT, as if they have some kind of logical reasoning limit. I come to this conclusion witnessing the chronic congestion caused almost entirely by private motor vehicle users in South London. And there are some people who are simply too scared to use public transport, reckoning that they'll be mugged, robbed, raped or otherwise inconvenienced whenever they use it. I know a young woman of 18 whose mother has simply never allowed her to use public transport in her entire life, which I find very shocking. But Dad is a policeman, and Mother says that "Dad tells them" all the dreadful things that go on You have to admire the logic in that, it's like a doctor saying "there's a lot of illness around, it seems like most of the people I meet at work are sick!". -- message by Robin May. Drinking Special Brew will get you drunk in much the same way that going to prison will give you a roof over your head and free meals. http://robinmay.fotopic.net |
[OT] 4x4 cars on London streets
Guy Perry wrote:
Guaranteed a seat, control of the climate, decent quality stereo and peace & quiet, as well as door to door transport So you could say a thoroughly US-american attitude Not at all... I think you'll find that preferring comfort to discomfort and convenience to inconvenience prevails in most parts of the developed world, and much of the developing world as well. Not sure why you regard this as a 'US-american attitude' - another agenda bubbling to the surface I suspect Short question: what's the sense in comfort if we knowingly ruin our environment? Unless proven otherwise combustion engines cause massive pollution which will cause future generations to live in less quality than we do - a bit selfish I'd say. Very... But I don't have a problem with that :-) |
[OT] 4x4 cars on London streets
Late response. Sorry.
Roland Perry wrote: Most of the commuter rail in and out of London is at bursting point, and has nowhere to scale *to*. It is at maximum capacity. Much not most. There may not be much capacity for extra trains, but there's plenty for making them longer. Last I looked, plenty of trains, even at peak times, are 4 or even 3 cars. There is a capacity problem on the tube - but even then mainly in zones 1 and 2. Colin McKenzie |
[OT] 4x4 cars on London streets
On Thu, 24 Feb 2005 16:38:03 +0000, Colin McKenzie wrote:
There may not be much capacity for extra trains, but there's plenty for making them longer. Last I looked, plenty of trains, even at peak times, are 4 or even 3 cars. I didn't realise the title was about running 16-car trains ;-) -- http://gallery120232.fotopic.net/p12161563.html (A red Parcels Bubble 55995 at London Liverpool Street in 1991) |
| All times are GMT. The time now is 02:09 AM. |
|
Powered by vBulletin®
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2006 LondonBanter.co.uk